Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

This is my first 1v1 on the newest patch. It features 1v1 American vs Wehrmacht close combat and tank battles on the 1v1 map Route D321. Sniper duels occurred throughout the whole match and my opponent managed to get a vet 3 sniper. He also managed to snipe alot of my tanks with his clever use of the stug 4. By the end of the game, I had 5 pershings and an SP against his mixed company of stug 4's, pnz 4's, and a tiger tank. He also managed to make 4 squads of grens + stormgrenadiers, so it was pretty chaotic. Also, the rifleman rifle grenade is pretty good. Enjoy.

American : Armour Doc
Wehrmacht : Blitzkrieg Doc





Because we've reached the upload quota and I don't want you guys to miss out, I've uploaded it to mediafire!

https://www.mediafire.com/file/bhwopjyb ... -10-50.rec

very great example to how blitzkrieg doctrine is smashed late game by the mighty armor doctrine .......
unstoppable american steel and paper german steel

Jeez, dude...it is called "counter doctrine". Strongest tanks of BK doctrine are Tigers and Panthers....now a question: which US gun is the best at killing exeactly these two tanks? Hmmm....let me think...maybe the 90mm cannon? And in how many US doctrines is this gun? A single one.
If Armor doc goes against TH doc, Armor doc will have hard time winning too, what will you say then? "Very good example to how Armor doctrine is smashed late game by the mighty tank bunter doctrine....unstoppable german steel and paper american steel"

For about a 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 time: BK is meant to be played in teams of at least TWO for a reason.

EDIT: this was reaction to seha's post, not original post

the problem is what blitzkrieg doctrine is counter for ....
or everyone can counter blitzkrieg doctrine ?

Let's immagine you don't play against Armor doctrine (because 90mm guns counter your strongest tanks easily) or RE (because you don't have strong arty to kill emplacements; that still leaves 4 doctrines you can quite well face on your own). You have the strongest WM infantry (Storms) and very strong tanks (Tigers and Panthers) and you have Ostwinds for Air defense, does that REALLY count for nothing? Are you really unable to use that to defeat your opponents?

And actually even if you play against either Armor or RE, if you play under the right settings (which is NOT 1v1) then your team mate(s) should pick something to supplement for your weakness (prefferably TH or Def doc) - they deal with tanks and emplacements, then you deal with the rest. Team work.

Alright, so I have watched the game now.. overall, the game was actually fun, despite that the WH player was clearly pissed off at the end specifically when his full HP Tiger tank died with a single shot by the vet.3 Pershing! That must have been very frustrating to him indeed. Though, it's definitely a clever use of Stug4s and sniper by the WH player.. he actually used the Stugs more as tank hunters, which is nice to see.

Nonetheless, this game indicate how AT teams for both sides (but most particularly for the WH one) probably need some decent price reduction, 360MP seems too much now. Pershing also has impressive HE rounds, that was just so deadly if I could say so...
And the Pershing also surprisingly bounced off the 100 ammo rocket ability from the 50mm Pak, I guess twice. So, that was such a bad RNG luck for the WH player right there.

Anyways, I also think that such a game is nothing more than just a valid response to most of those people here who repeatedly kept claiming that Armor doc is bad or whatever.

Also, it is another good reason why 76 Shermans don't need any improvements... Not only because they are available to all docs, but also because Armor doctrine actually does not even need them most of the time, and other US docs just have them as some sort of a "bonus" where they are certainly not needed at all either, in fact.. even removing the 76 Shermans from those 2 doctrines won't matter at all. On the other hand the Pz4 H & J are available for only 2 docs, in which they are absolutely necessary! Blitz doc is obviously all about them, and in TH doc.. they are the only tanks with turrets...

seha wrote:very great example to how blitzkrieg doctrine is smashed late game by the mighty armor doctrine .......
unstoppable american steel and paper german steel

Tell me what your nickname is in steam, and I'll give you an example, personally of what the BK doctrine is, if you want (1v1)

Tiger1996 wrote:
Also, it is another good reason why 76 Shermans don't need any improvements... Not only because they are available to all docs, but also because Armor doctrine actually does not even need them most of the time, and other US docs just have them as some sort of a "bonus" where they are certainly not needed at all either, in fact.. even removing the 76 Shermans from those 2 doctrines won't matter at all. On the other hand the Pz4 H & J are available for only 2 docs, in which they are absolutely necessary! Blitz doc is obviously all about them, and in TH doc.. they are the only tanks with turrets...

Made my day. Right. Well, yes, they suck. So nobody goes for them.

I mean the stugs would have ripped them appart. Its that what you actually wanted to say.

And funny.... a very small branch (actually two unlocks, perhaps three when counting faster vehicle and tank production), is already better than the entire rest of the doctrine according to this statment.

This is like saying: "Luftwaffe doc does not need more than the Panther unlock".... Air strikes, Luft inf etc are "just bonus".

Tiger1996 wrote:doctrine actually does not even need them most of the time

So earlier they were a great weapon by your words, now you think its good to delete them entirely and it won't do affect anything! That a not really good reason to just throw out of a window a unit that has no use.
Oh by the way, any panzer 4 with long barrel and AP rounds can counter expensive Jumbo, if you didn't know.

@Hawks
It's also exactly like when I say that Terror doctrine don't even need the KT most of the time.. that's 11 command points btw! Though, this doesn't mean the KT is completely useless.


So, what i wanted to say is obviously that they are not the core of the doctrine and are not intended to be the core of the doctrine... Jackson and Pershing are the core of the doctrine on the other hand, and Shermans are just another "option" that you may get to use effectively as well but only in certain conditions.. which means that Pershings are needed more often than not, and there is no way to buff the Shermans further without significantly harming the overall balance in that case.

@Mr. FeministDonut
Yes, they are great weapon.. did I say otherwise? With just two sanbagged 76 Shermans you CAN kill a Tiger1 or at least compete with it. Shermans will not really die with 1 shot when sandbagged (Pz.4 can die with 1 shot by the 90mm guns much more often than Shermans by 88) but why would u have to do that anyway when u could just have a Pershing? Just as we can see what has happened in this game here. So, they are certainly not useless.. and never said they are!

And if those 76 Shermans would be deleted from Airborne or infantry doctrines, then yes.. it would not matter, because they are just a bonus there. It's like if you would add Pz.H to ALL Axis doctrines too... Airborne simply does not have to rely on 76 Shermans. However, this does still not mean that they are entirely useless, neither does it mean that they are to be removed or anything due to being not a core unit.

And btw, M10 can kill Tigers from the front.. if you didn't know! That's even "more expensive" than the Jumbo and the M10 is even cheaper than the Pz4, so what?

Tiger1996 wrote:And btw, M10 can kill Tigers from the front.. if you didn't know! That's even "more expensive" than the Jumbo and the M10 is even cheaper than the Pz4, so what?

Please don't compare tank destroyer with a panzer 4, you know it is wrong.
Removing 76 is not a deal, you just proof your words that all 76 except armor doc (which is too questionable) is useless. So why don't we buff 76, just to give a player additional path to build order, instead of deleting all unnecessary units, which will make the gameplay just boring with the same old tactics and gameplay.
Let's delete Grenadiers from BK doc, why we need them if they have stormtroopers already?

Please don't compare tank destroyer with a panzer 4, you know it is wrong.

My point is that the Jumbo Sherman is not even that much of an "expensive tank" so even if it would die with 1 shot sometimes, it's not a big deal.
You know that there are other units that are waaaaaaay much more expensive which are still destroy-able by cheap stuff...

Let's delete Grenadiers from BK doc, why we need them if they have stormtroopers already?

Absolutely don't mind, but then Rangers could be also removed from Airborne doctrine!

Removing 76 is not a deal, you just proof your words that all 76 except armor doc (which is too questionable) is useless. So why don't we buff 76, just to give a player additional path to build order, instead of deleting all unnecessary units, which will make the gameplay just boring with the same old tactics and gameplay.

I never said the 76 Shermans should be delete, I was only giving an explanation as of why I believe that there is no way to buff them any further or somehow try to make them "more useful" without breaking the overall balance...
I mean, buffing 76 Shermans is actually "fine" but at the same time, I think it can also be "risky" to the overall PvP balance.

Tiger1996 wrote:I mean, buffing 76 Shermans is actually "fine" but at the same time, I think it can also be "risky" to the overall PvP balance.

I don't mind if a airborne or infantry player instead of hellcat or whatever pussy shit, would go something else, just to juice the combat.
And, at this time sherman is a lot worse than its counter-part Pz4, so buffing 76 at least close to the same level won't be bad or ruin any balance. Everybody would have same chances, when same investments are done in those tanks.

Everybody would have same chances, when same investments are done in those tanks.

This is possible, but I think this would only be more boring.. because if you give everyone the "same chances" then this game would be even more all about pure luck. For example reducing the reload time of the 76 Shermans or giving it same rate of fire as Pz4, would only mean that the 76 Sherman should also have less penetration against heavier Axis tanks, such as Tigers. Or I mean, exactly same as Pz4 penetration against heavier Allied tanks such as Pershing! Wondering why? Well, because everyone should have same chances...

If you compare the 76 Sherman with Pz4.F2 for example, both of them almost cost the same.. right? However, there are some "differences" which makes you feel that you are using a "different" weapon... And that leads to a more realistic feeling.
Pz4.F2 has slightly higher rate of fire, but 76 Sherman has top MG gunner (with suppression ability) and also has slightly better penetrating against heavier Axis tanks... Does this seem unfair now?? I think it's already fair enough.

Tiger1996 wrote:

Everybody would have same chances, when same investments are done in those tanks.

This is possible, but I think this would only be more boring.. because if you give everyone the "same chances" then this game would be even more all about pure luck. For example reducing the reload time of the 76 Shermans or giving it same rate of fire as Pz4, would only mean that the 76 Sherman should also have less penetration against heavier Axis tanks, such as Tigers. Or I mean, exactly same as Pz4 penetration against heavier Allied tanks such as Pershing! Wondering why? Well, because everyone should have same chances...

If you compare the 76 Sherman with Pz4.F2 for example, both of them almost cost the same.. right? However, there are some "differences" which makes you feel that you are using a "different" weapon... And that leads to a more realistic feeling.
Pz4.F2 has slightly higher rate of fire, but 76 Sherman has top MG gunner (with suppression ability) and also has slightly better penetrating against heavier Axis tanks... Does this seem unfair now?? I think it's already fair enough.

What does make sence? Only because Sherman can 1 out of 9999999 shots POSSIBLY penetrate 1/3 of tigers health through forward plate should means that it need to be a pussy against any other tanks? Yes, fair enough, it seems for you sherman is a directly counter for tiger tank lol. You see a Tiger or Panther tank, what we should do? Build a sherman. Noice.
And about slightly higher rate of fire, Warhawks and other people already explained how 2 additional seconds of reloading ruins perfomance against other tanks. My eyes crying a blood river everytime I see a word SLIGHTLY

So, here we come back to the first point once again...
76 reload is 6 to 7 seconds, Pz4 reload is 4.5 to 5.5 seconds... You consider 1.5 seconds as BIG DEAL, but 34% penetration chance against Tiger1 by 76 compared to 26% penetration chance against Pershing by Pz4 as NOT a big deal on the other hand.
Keeping in mind Pz4.H (basic price) is also as expensive as 75mm Jumbo from inf doc or Firefly!

Believe me, it's my eyes that are crying a river now.. anyway, my point is that if 76 Sherman would have higher rate of fire... Then it must also have the same penetration chances as Pz4 against heavier tanks. This is my last post here

Tiger1996 wrote:So, here we come back to the first point once again...
76 reload is 6 to 7 seconds, Pz4 reload is 4.5 to 5.5 seconds... You consider 1.5 seconds as BIG DEAL, but 34% penetration chance against Tiger1 by 76 compared to 26% penetration chance against Pershing by Pz4 as NOT a big deal on the other hand.
Keeping in mind Pz4.H (basic price) is also as expensive as 75mm Jumbo from inf doc or Firefly!

Believe me, it's my eyes that are crying a river now.. anyway, my point is that if 76 Sherman would have higher rate of fire... Then it must also have the same penetration chances as Pz4 against heavier tanks. This is my last post here

WHAT IS PENETRATION VALUES ARE HERE FOR . WHO ARE MAKING SHERMANS AND PANZER4 AGAINST HEAVY TANKS? ?????!!!!!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
ARE YOU LIKE SPAMMING SHERMANS AGAINST TIGERS????????? EVERYBODY ABUSES THAT 34% PENETRATION?????????? funny lmfao please go, im just pissed off with non-sense

What a bullshit..

1. I could understand when rangers are doctrinal. But removing all long barrled (sherman) tanks from all US docs. You must be kidding. Its like removing all long barreld tank IV´s from all docs but BK doc.

76 shermans are currently much more comparable to Panzer IV F2. In terms of pen chance against each other but also in terms to medium AT gun resistance (where iirc the F2 is still better)

2. Let hellcat out here. The Chance for axis TD´s like Hetzer to kill a Pershing is just as good (or take marder III). Even easier as those benefit twice from doubled penetration since they shoot twice from ambush. Thus they also deal twice 50% more damage+ their AP boost the damage unlike US one.

So i can easily claim that killing pershings with hetzer and AP is easier as to kill a tiger with Hellcat.


3. The majority of unlocks in armor doc aims for buffing shermans and vehicles. I am not counting CP´s, just the ammount unlocks. Here, KT and perhaps Tigers take 2 unlock slots. Just like pershing and SP. But the core are shermans (unlock, mass prod, variants, ammo, war machinery, faster experience etc etc).

So yes, 76 shermans and shermans in general need to get better.... Rate of fire, perhaps pen, armor.... They are core units in one doc and max tier tanks in two more. in BK Tank IV´s are less core units... they can tier even higher)... the mass prod also makes the ostwind cheaper... so that unlock becomes not usless in late game when you dont bulld tank IV´s anymore.

get this straight.

and last but not least... the chances on hand held at now makes friendly armor support more important then ever. And AB and inf do lack it. TD´s arent good for closer frontline support...

Tiger1996 wrote:If you compare the 76 Sherman with Pz4.F2 for example, both of them almost cost the same.. right? However, there are some "differences" which makes you feel that you are using a "different" weapon... And that leads to a more realistic feeling.
Pz4.F2 has slightly higher rate of fire, but 76 Sherman has top MG gunner (with suppression ability) and also has slightly better penetrating against heavier Axis tanks... Does this seem unfair now?? I think it's already fair enough.

argh... honestly.... i wouldnt care a shit whether its 34 or 30 % pen vs Tiger.


I dont give a shit how good a 76 is against a tiger.... 20%, 30%.... i dont fucking care.

I care that Shermans taking a loss, even at same cost and superior gameplay, whenever they face a tank IV or stug...

And 2 sec faster reload isnt "slight"!

Didnt you notice that this means that even a vet 4 sherman is just as fast in reloading as a standard Tank IV? There is nothing "slight about it"..... Its 25-30% faster. This is not "slight"


Tigers are killed usually by other stuff, just as pershings. Its not that you sit there and say "Oh, Tiger, i build many shermans to counter it". You get AT nests, off maps ready, jacks, whatever fuck.....

What is shit is that you go for 76 bc.... bc yeah... why? That i have a 30-40% win chance against a unit my 76 is supposed to be a counter against.

Like when a Jagdpanzer IV/70 has a 40% chance to beat a Churchill MK IV.


And stop coming arround with that top gunner stuff. I wont be able to use it when my tank dies to the next ambushed 50 mm.... i can just as well build HE shermans to counter inf. I need 76 for fighting at the front against comming targets, which does not mean tigers. I talk about stugs, tank IV´s and perhaps TD´s at occassion.

Whats so hard to get this straight? Why always coming arround with pershings and tigers?

Well, I think the solution to this debate is simple, "another 1v1 example" ...Mr.FeministDonut (BK) vs Tiger1996(armor), three games in a row, accept the challenge? so we could see some differences, since the game is not balanced for 1v1, but still, you can see some differences....do it please!!!

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:EVERYBODY ABUSES THAT 34% PENETRATION??????????

you told tiger same chances to everyone will be more fair and so he told you if the reload should be same, the penetration vs bigger tanks should be same too, but now after he tell you this, you dont think everyone should have the same chances anymore

something important too, 76 sherman jumbo use same gun of normal 76 sherman, if 76 sherman jumbo reload faster too, it will become true killer.

seha wrote:

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:EVERYBODY ABUSES THAT 34% PENETRATION??????????

you told tiger same chances to everyone will be more fair and so he told you if the reload should be same, the penetration vs bigger tanks should be same too, but now after he tell you this, you dont think everyone should have the same chances anymore

something important too, 76 sherman jumbo use same gun of normal 76 sherman, if 76 sherman jumbo reload faster too, it will become true killer.

this is stupid and no significant, who really wants a medium tank be deployed against heavier one. It is more just a like a rubbish fact to keep distract from a real subject